Ex.Hc/Dvr. Mahipal Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4487 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                      Judgment Reserved on: July 19, 2012
                     Judgment Pronounced on: July 30, 2012

+                      WP(C) 2773/1999

      EX.HC/DVR. MAHIPAL SINGH                   ..... Petitioner
           Represented by: Mr.H.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate
                           with Ms.Anjali Chaturvedi, Advocate

                       versus

      UOI & ORS.                             ....Respondents
           Represented by: Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. During arguments on July 19, 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded that a most inartistically drafted writ petition has been filed, without any application of mind. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge most of the points projected in the writ petition. The absurdity in the pleadings and the non-application of mind by the counsel who filed the writ petition is evident from the fact that the counsel concerned, who appears to be having good contacts with jawans in Central Para Military Forces had been filing writ petitions which were a verbatim copy of each other, and in the instant case one instance of absurdity of the highest kind could be illustrated with respect to the fact that the writ petitioner is Ex.HC/DRV Mahipal Singh and not L/Nk.R.L.Meena. In the writ petition challenge is made to the order passed by

the Disciplinary Authority on September 10, 1998, which pertains to L/Nk.R.L.Meena and not the petitioner.

2. However, as agreed to between learned counsel for the parties, arguments were advanced with reference to the original record of inquiry, and in respect whereof only two contentions were urged at the hearing of the writ petition. The first contention was that the Inquiry Officer Asstt.Comdt. Kuldeep Kumar had a bias resulting in his overlooking material evidence and material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the bias was on account of the fact that as per Article of Charge-V, it was alleged against the petitioner that at 08:30 hours on March 30, 1998 he had disobeyed the lawful command of Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar, the Inquiry Officer, by not appearing in the orderly room as directed by Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar. It was thus urged that Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar, being a complainant with respect to Article-V of the charge, was biased, in that, he had an interest to sustain the charge; come what may. It was urged that admittedly, petitioner had requested for change of Inquiry Officer, which request was rejected without a justifiable cause. The second contention urged was that as a consequence of the bias the Inquiry Officer ignored the testimony of Ct.(Cook) Inderpal Singh and during inquiry elicited a response from Inderpal Singh, which response was at total variance with the testimony of Inderpal Singh. Attacking the report of the Inquiry Officer it was urged that except for noting briefly the testimony of Inderpal Singh, no attempt was made to analyze the same. Taking the argument further, it was urged that the inchoate and disjunctive testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh was

unnecessarily given due prominence, without analyzing the inherent contradictions, disjunctiveness and inchoateness in the testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh.

3. We proceed with our discussion by reproducing the charge framed against the petitioner, having five article of charge. They read as under:-

"Annexure-I STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO.881380017 HC/DVR MAHIPAL SINGH OF CISF UNIT NPC, KAIGA

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - I Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh while functioning as HC/DVR at CISF Unit NPC, Kaiga, on the night of 29.3.98/30.3.98 beat No.911380013 Cook Inderpal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga at about 22:30 hrs. in the Unit lines and in front of Quarter Guard and thereby causing him injuries. Hence, the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - II Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga on the night of 29.3.98/30.3.98 by shouting and abusing, created nuisance and disturbed the peace of Sub-officers and Unit personnel in Unit lines and Quarter Guard for more than 02 hours between 22:30 and 01:00 hrs. Hence, the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - III Gross indiscipline and insubordination in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga on the night of 29.3.98/30.3.98 at about 01:30 hrs. when taken to NPC Hospital for medical examination refused to undergo medical examination when ordered by Inspector S.R.Singh and SI/Exe M.V.Velayudhan. Hence, the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - IV Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga on the night of 29.3.98/30.3.98 by shouting and abusing, created nuisance and disturbed the peace at NPC Hospital when he was taken for medical examination by Sub- officers of the Unit, thereby tarnishing the image of CISF among NPC employees. Hence, the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - V Gross indiscipline, insubordination and misconduct in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga 30.3.98 at about 08:30 hrs., abused C.H.M., HC/GD B.N.Soren and Senior Officers, and refused to appear in the orderly room of Asstt. Commandant, CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga, when the order was communicate to him by C.H.M. Hence, the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - VI That No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh is a habitual offender in that he has in a short period of less than 10 years of service been penalized on 11 occasions (10 minor and 1 major), out or which two penalties have been imposed for similar type of offence of shouting, abusing and misbehaving in his previous Unit. He has failed to rectify misconduct and discipline in spite of repeated penalties. Hence, the charge."

4. Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and on May 22, 1998 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Commandant of the CISF Unit to which the petitioner was attached, requesting as under:-

"To The Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit,

N.F.C.Hyderabad.

Through Proper Channel

Sub: Application for change of Enquiry Officer

Sir, It is prayed that I No.881380017HV/Dvr Mahipal working under your in C.I.S.F. Unit NPCKega is suspended since 3rd April.

Sir, the applicant received an order dated 20.5.98 from your office order No.V- 15014/CISF/NPC(K)/Maj.2/98-1401 dated 06 May 1998 in which Asstt.Commandant Sh.Kuldeep Kumar is appointed as Enquiry Officer.

Sir, the applicant repeatedly prayed that enquiry officer is appointed may appointed from any other unit other than CISF Unit Kega by which the applicant can get the justice by enquiry. It is also prayed the enquiry should be conducted in Hindi Language by which the applicant can understand the same.

Therefore, it is prayed the by considering the above stated enquiry officer may be appointed from some other unit by which in Hindi Language the applicant can get the justice by enquiry. For which I shall be very thankful to you.

Yours faithfully Sd/-

Mahipal Singh"

5. The request was rejected by the Commandant and the same was communicated to the petitioner as per letter dated June 09, 1998 which reads as under:-

"To, The Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga.

         Sub:        DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY REGARDING


          Refer    to    your     office   letter   No.V-

15014/CISF/NPC(K)/Maj./98-1592 dated 27.5.98 forwarding therewith application dated 22.5.98 submitted by HC/Dvr. (U/S) Mahipal Singh of NPC Kaiga.

2. Application dated 22.5.98 submitted by HC/Dvr.(U/S) Mahipal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC Kaiga for change of Enquiry Officer has been examined by the undersigned and same rejected being devoid of merit. Therefore, Sh.Kuldip Kumar, AC/E.O. be directed to conduct departmental enquiry proceedings against HC/Dvr.(U/S) Mahipal Singh on day to day basis and submit enquiry report without further delay.

Sd/-

(E.Radhakrishna, IPS) Commandant"

6. At the inquiry 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, one of whom was Ct.(Cook) Inderpal Singh, examined as PW-4.

7. We briefly note, by rearranging the sequence of the witnesses of the prosecution, and we do so to facilitate highlighting the relevant facts which would have a bearing on the analysis of the record, keeping in view the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since it forms the fulcrum of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we extract fully the testimony of Ct.(Cook) Inderpal Singh, and while doing so, we shall be putting serial number „(i)‟ onwards in the statement at various places, for the reason this would facilitate an analysis of his testimony. He deposed:-

"(i) I have been working as a Cook in Unit Kaiga, CISF force since August 19, 1994. On March 29, 1998, at about 9:30 PM I was going to the mess from my room for taking meal and as I reached

downstairs (ii) I saw barber Satya Prakash on the stairs who asked me as to where was I going. I replied that I was going to the mess to take meals. (iii) Thereupon Satya Prakash said „You do not cook meals properly and behave like a bully.‟ I told him to report the matter (iv) at which he slapped me and as a result I fell down on the railing and started bleeding due to injury on my head. He inflicted 2 - 3 fist blows when I was lying on the floor and in the (v) meantime Major Mahipal Singh and Major R.L.Meena reached and asked Satya Prakash as to why was he beating me. (vi) Satya Prakash said : „Ye saala dada banta hai.‟ I asked what was my fault. (vii) I went to the room of Insp.S.R.Singh and told that he was beating me. (viii) Aforesaid three persons reached room of S.R.Singh. (ix) Satya Prakash said „Why are you making complaint. (x) We would set you right‟. (xi) Thereupon Satya Prakash started beating me and S.R.Singh saved me. (xii) I ran outside but Satya Prakash caught me ahead of the line and felled me on the ground and inflicted a fist blow. (xiii) After that all the three persons started beating me. (xiv) Ct.Parameshwarappa reached and saved me.

(xv) I ran to the quarter guard. (xvi) Satya Prakash asked Sentry Abbas to hand me over to him for five minutes. (xvii) Abbas said that this is the Quarter Guard and requested him not to quarrel. (xviii) I went to Insp.K.K.G.Nair and reported the matter and left in an ambulance to the hospital where Dr.Ramappa examined me and administered medicines. After about two hours the Asstt.Comdt. came. X-ray revealed that my right rib was fractured and hence I was referred to Kakahar Hospital where the doctor advised me 10 days medical rest."

8. The Inquiry Officer put questions to Inderpal and got exhibited the medical record of Inderpal showing his having been treated for the injuries to which he had deposed to. He was put a pointed question: „Whether HC Driver

Mahipal Singh beat you on the night of March 29, 1998. To which he replied : „Yes‟.

9. We also propose to note the complete statement made by Insp.S.R.Singh who appeared as PW-1, and while doing so, would be putting serial numbers „(i)‟ onwards, for the reason this would facilitate an appreciation of the testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh. He deposed:-

"(i) I have been working as an Inspector at CISF NPC Kaiga since August 07, 1997 (ii) on March 29, 1997 at about 10:30 sweeper Nagraj came to me at SO mess and said that Insp.K.K.G.Nair was asking for a vehicle for night checking. (iii) At that time Cook Inderpal, HC Dvr. Mahipal Singh and barber Satya Prakash came to me and (iv) Cook Inderpal told me that they were beating him. (v) I asked Dvr.H.C. Mahipal and barber Satya Prakash regarding the meeting and they replied that there was no such thing at which I inquired from barber Satya Prakash why he had come to the line at night and he told me that his wife was ill and had wanted HC Dvr. Mahipal Singh to take his wife to the hospital. I told Mahipal Singh to take Satya Prakash wife

(vi) and told Insp.Nair to go on night checking.

(vii) All those persons went out. (viii) After a while when I came out I saw cook Inderpal swearing and HC Dvr. Mahipal Singh and L/Nk.Meena beating him. (ix) I separated Ct.Parameshwarappa and barber Satya Prakash after placating them. (x) Cook Inderpal again started swearing (xi) and HC Dvr. Mahipal Singh and L/Nk.Meena started beating him. (xii) I again placated them and separated them and informed the Asstt.Comdt. over the telephone.

(xiii) Cook Inderpal said that he was going to report the matter to Insp.Nair. (xiv) At about 23:45 hours Ct.Syed Ahmed Abbas came to me and told me that cook Inderpal had gone to the hospital. As I came outside I saw HC Dvr.

Mahipal Singh, L/Nk.Meena and Ct.Parameshwarappa in front of the mess. (xv) I

asked them what the matter was.

Ct.Parameshwerappa said : „They have taken the key of my scooter.‟ (xvi) At this HC Mahipal Singh swore at him. Ct.Parameshwerappa pushed HC Mahipal Singh due to which he fell down (xvii) thereafter L/Nk.Meena and Parameshwarappa started quarreling. (xviii) Ct.Syed Abbas and Ct.V.Hamsa separated them. I brought the incident to the notice of the Asstt.Comdt. over telephone. (xix) After a while Asstt.Comdt. came to the line and took HC Dvr.

Mahipal Singh, L/Nk.Meena and Ct.Parameshwarappa to the hospital. I and SI Vetyadhan accompanied them. (xx) At the hospital HC Dvr. Mahipal and L/Nk. Meena refused to undergo medical checkup and started speaking loudly. (xxi) They were brought back to the camp and were directed to go back to their residence. They refused. I recorded the incident in the General Duty Diary Ex.PW- 1/Ext.P-1."

10. Ct.P.Mayathevan PW-2 deposed that in the night of March 29, 1998 he saw and heard Insp.S.R.Singh repeatedly telling HC Dvr. Mahipal Singh and L/Nk.R.L.Meena to reach the line and saw Ct.Syed Abbas and Quarter Guard V.Hamsa restraining Ct.Parameshwarappa. All of them were swearing and yelling. SI M.Bhaskaran PW-3 deposed that in the night of March 29, 1998 he saw and heard Insp.S.R.Singh shouting at L/Nk.R.L.Meena. Thereafter he saw and heard HC Dvr.Mahipal Singh, L/Nk.R.L.Meena, barber Satya Prakash and cook Inderpal shouting at each other and jostling with each other. Insp.S.R.Singh was separating them. Ct.Syed Abbas PW-5 deposed that at around 22:30 hours on March 29, 1998, when he was on duty at the Quarter Guard cook Inderpal came to him and requested to save him. L/Nk.R.L.Meena came to the Quarter Guard and he told both of them not to quarrel in the

Quarter Guard. Meena left and Inderpal Singh went to the hospital. HC S.B.Sawant PW-6 deposed that around 10:00 PM on March 29, 1998 the Sentry told him that there was commotion near the lines and as he reached the lines he saw HC Dvr.Mahipal Singh and L/Nk.R.L.Meena having caught cook Inderpal Singh and all of them were exchanging abuses. HC Mahipal slapped cook Inderpal and Insp.S.R.Singh separated them. But even then exchange of abuses continued. Ct.V.Hamsa PW-7 deposed that while he was on duty, at around midnight on March 29, 1998 Ct.Parameshwarappa attempted to contact the Deputy Commandant over the telephone, but could not do so. At that time Mahipal Singh and Meena were calling Ct.Parameshwarappa to come outside. Insp.S.R.Singh came and made a telephonic call to the Asstt.Comdt. who then came to the line. HC Dvr. Mahipal Singh, R.L.Meena and Ct.Parameshwarappa were removed to the hospital. Ct.Parameshwarappa PW-8 deposed that at around 10:30 in the night on March 29, 1998 he was going on his scooter towards the line when he heard noise near the line. As he reached the line he saw Inderpal lying near the stairs and Ct.R.L.Meena was beating him. He saw HC Dvr.Mahipal Singh at some distance. He reported the matter to Insp.S.R.Singh who came to the spot and calmed them. When he enquired, Inderpal said that Ct.Meena had inflicted on him a fist blow. His attempt to contact the Asstt.Commandant over the telephone failed but after a while Insp.S.R.Singh came and contacted the Asstt.Commandant and informed him about the incident. The Asstt.Commandant reached. Ct.R.L.Meena and HC Dvr.Mahipal Singh were taken to the hospital where the two refused to be medically examined. HC

Dvr.E.Muraleedharan PW-10 deposed that when he was sleeping Ct.Viranta woke him at around 1:00 AM on March 29, 1998 and told him that Insp.S.R.Singh was calling him to bring the Asstt.Commandant to the lines and thus he brought the Asstt.Commandant to the lines in a vehicle. The Asstt.Commandant told him to take Mahipal, R.L.Meena, Parameshwarappa and Insp.S.R.Singh to the hospital. He complied. SI M.V.Velayudhan PW-11 deposed that at around 10:30 in the night of March 29, 1998 Ct.Syed Abbas came to his house and told him that the Asstt.Commandant has summoned him to the Unit lines and thus he reached the Unit lines. He took HC Dvr.Mahipal Singh, Ct.R.L.Meena and Ct.Parameshwarappa in a jeep to the hospital where he found Inderpal admitted. At the hospital Mahipal Singh and R.L.Meena refused to be medically examined due to which there was exchange of hot words. HC B.M.Soren PW-12 deposed that at around 1 O‟clock on March 29, 1998 an Inspector called him to the lines and as he reached he saw HC Dvr.Mahipal Singh and Ct.R.L.Meena swearing at Ct.Parameshwarappa. All three were ready to quarrel. The Inspector told him to call the Asstt.Commandant. The Asstt.Commandant came after a while and took all three to the hospital where he found cook Inderpal admitted at the hospital. ASI K.P.Rao PW-9 produced the service record of the petitioner and exhibited various documents from the service record evidencing the past penalties levied upon the petitioner i.e. K.P.Rao was a witness to the character of the petitioner.

11. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on July 29, 1998 holding that all five articles of charge were proved. The report spans 31 pages, and we regret to note, is mechanical

and not analytical in its content. In the first four pages of the report, the Inquiry Officer has simply narrated the various proceedings he had conducted. At page No.5 he has reproduced the five charges and after noting that the charged officer had denied the charges, has in the sixth page once again noted the same five charges which he has reproduced in page No.5, to highlight that his job was to conduct an inquiry with respect to the five charges which were denied. From page No.7 to page No.14 of the report he has summarized the testimony of the 12 witnesses and in pages No.15 and 16 he has summarized the reply filed by the charged officer to the articles of charge leveled against the delinquent officer. Ostensibly commencing the discussion, in page No.17 the Inquiry Officer has noted that every fact was denied by the charged officer and thus there was no admitted fact, requiring him to discuss each and every aspect. In the next 2½ pages, the Inquiry Officer has once again reproduced the article of charge No.1 to 5 and has thereafter penned as to what was in dispute. In brief he has once again recorded that everything was in dispute. Thereafter he has simply noted by briefly recording what the witnesses of the prosecution have said and to each charge has returned a finding of guilt.

12. We find that the apparent contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses vis-à-vis the role of the petitioner in the incident and in particular the contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses who deposed having witnessed the incident, vis-à-vis the testimony of cook Inderpal Singh, the central actor and the victim of the episode, have just not been discussed by the Inquiry Officer.

13. We refer back to paragraph 3 of our decision, where we have reproduced the articles of charge framed against the petitioner. We highlight that the so called article-6 of the charge is actually not a charge, but is to bring home the point that petitioner‟s past conduct would be considered, and obviously on the subject of the penalty to be levied if the first five charges stood proved. The five articles of charge are the five limbs of a running incident and thus we may summarize that the substance of the allegations was that in the intervening night of 28th and 29th March 1998 the petitioner gave beating to cook Inderpal firstly at the unit lines and then in front of the Quarter Guard. While doing so he shouted and abused and thus created a nuisance at the Unit lines and disturbed the peace at the Unit lines. When taken to the hospital for a medical checkup he refused lawful command to undergo a medical examination and by shouting and abusing at the NPC Hospital he created a nuisance at the hospital and hence tarnished the image of CISF. When directed to appear thereafter in the room of the Asstt.Commandant, he refused to do so and thereby disobeyed lawful command.

14. From the charges, one could safely split up the allegation as having four distinct limbs thereof. Firstly the petitioner abusing and beating cook Inderpal at the Unit lines; secondly the petitioner abusing and beating cook Inderpal at the Quarter Guard; thirdly the petitioner refusing to undergo a medical test at the hospital and creating nuisance at the hospital; and fourthly when he was asked to appear in the orderly room before the Asstt.Commandant, the petitioner disobeyed the lawful command by not appearing before the Asstt.Commandant.

15. As per the prosecution, it all started when the petitioner inflicted injuries on cook Inderpal at the Unit lines. This was the trigger. It is apparent that the star witness of the prosecution would be cook Inderpal, who was examined as PW-

4.

16. We have reproduced the testimony of cook Inderpal in para 7 above and while so doing, have put serial number (i) onwards in the statement to facilitate an analysis of Inderpal‟s testimony. Statements at serial number (i) to (iii) would reveal that as per Inderpal, at the Unit lines, he had a verbal dialogue with barber Satya Prakash and it was Satya Prakash who assaulted him at the Unit lines. Inderpal does not even make a reference to the petitioner till the stage when according to him Satya Prakash assaulted him. After making the statement at serial number (iv) by which stage he had spoken of the incident of being beaten by Satya Prakash and receiving injuries and having fallen down, he narrates as per serial number (v) of the petitioner and R.L.Meena reaching. He has referred to them as Major, but counsels agreed that the reference was to HC Mahipal Singh and L/Nk.R.L.Meena. But he states that the two asked Satya Prakash as to why was he beating Inderpal. The next statement at serial number (vi) is of the reply given by Satya Prakash. He then proceeds to state as per serial number (vii) that he went to the room of Insp.S.R.Singh and told him that Satya Prakash had beaten him. The next statement was that at that time Satya Prakash, R.L.Meena and the petitioner reached the room of S.R.Singh but it was only Satya Prakash who had a grouse of his i.e. Inderpal making a complaint to the Inspector. He stated as per serial number (x) that Satya Prakash said we would set you

right, and one can ascribe the said statement with reference to the word „we‟ used by Inderpal to mean that Satya Prakash meant that he i.e. Satya Prakash along with R.L.Meena and the petitioner would set him right. But, we highlight that it is not uncommon for witnesses in India to convert singulars into plurals and when intending to say : „He wanted to beat me‟, say „They wanted to beat me‟. But in the very next sentence i.e. serial number (xi) he categorically states that after Satya Prakash said we would set you right, it was Satya Prakash who started beating him and S.R.Singh saved him. He goes on to depose as per serial number (xii) that he ran outside but Satya Prakash caught him and beat him. At serial number (xiii) he then says that all three persons started beating me and Ct.Parameshwarappa saved him. He then deposes of his running to the Quarter Guard and Satya Prakash reaching.

17. Now, one could only highlight statement number

(xiii) of Inderpal when he said „that after that all the three persons started beating me.‟ One could possibly argue that since three persons were being spoken of by him i.e. Satya Prakash, R.L.Meena and the petitioner, he meant that said three persons started beating him. But, it cannot be forgotten that the central actor and the only antagonist in the drama is Satya Prakash.

18. Let us now advert and analyze the testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh, and as per him, and for which statements at serial number (i) and (ii) may be referred to, he was in his room talking with sweeper Nagaraj when as per statement at serial number (iii) Inderpal, Satya Prakash and the petitioner came to him and Inderpal complained that they were beating him. The word „they‟ would obviously mean Mahipal Singh and

Satya Prakash. As per statement number (v), HC Mahipal and Satya Prakash denied any such incident and obviously if there was no such incident, it was natural for S.R.Singh to ask them as to why they had come to him, a fact which he deposes as per statement number (v), to which they responded that Satya Prakash was wanting Mahipal Singh to take his wife to the hospital. Though not stated by Insp.S.R.Singh, it would obviously be to take his permission for Mahipal to use an official vehicle for the purpose. As per S.R.Singh he gave the necessary permission at which the three persons i.e. Inderpal, Mahipal and Satya Prakash walked out. But what strikes us as an aberration in the statement is : What did S.R.Singh do with respect to the complaint of Inderpal that Mahipal and Satya Prakash were beating him? He is completely silent. He then deposes that as he came out he saw Mahipal and L/Nk.Meena beating Inderpal. His statement number (viii) is : „After a while when I came out I saw cook Inderpal swearing and HC Dvr. Mahipal Singh and L/Nk.Meena beating him‟. But then his very next statement number (ix) is : „I separated Ct. Parameshwarappa and barber Satya Prakash after placating them.‟ It strikes a jarring note. If as per statement at serial number (vii), Mahipal Singh and Meena were beating Inderpal, where was the question for him to separate Parameshwarappa and Satya Prakash.

19. It is apparent that Insp.S.R.Singh has not only deposed inchoately, but his testimony lacks coherence and that there is a complete disconnect, and no logic in the acts of the various actors as per what he deposes.

20. We have yet to complete the analysis of the further testimony of S.R.Singh, and for which we may refer back to the

testimony of the main protagonist in the drama who is also the victim i.e. Inderpal. As per Inderpal after he came outside the room of S.R.Singh it was Satya Prakash who started beating him and when he ran to the Quarter Guard, it was Satya Prakash who followed him when Sentry Abbas intervened and Inderpal went to Insp.Nair to report the matter and therefrom proceeded to the hospital. Ct.Syed Abbas PW-5 has deposed of Inderpal coming to the Quarter Guard for being rescued but he stated that it was R.L.Meena who came to the Quarter Guard. In this backdrop, we note what Insp.S.R.Singh has to depose further. As per him when Inderpal left the room and as he i.e. S.R.Singh came out soon thereafter he saw Inderpal swearing and the petitioner and Meena beating Inderpal. He once again intervened and separated them and informed the Asstt.Commandant about the incident over the telephone.

21. As per Ct.Mayathevan, SI M.Bhaskaran, HC S.B.Sawant, Ct.V.Hamsa and Ct.Parameshwarappa they saw petitioner, R.L.Meena and Inderpal exchanging verbal abuses, some stating that it was R.L.Meena who was beating Inderpal and some say it was petitioner who was beating Inderpal.

22. There is apparent inchoateness and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, but one thing is brought out. There was a lot of commotion and pandemonium in the Unit lines. An incident did take place, probably having disjunctive sequences. It was midnight. Some witnesses were on duty, and presumably fairly alert. Some like E.Muraleedharan were sleeping when the commotion broke their slumber and thus were a little groggy.

23. There is utter confusion. As per Inderpal, Ct.Parameshwarappa saved him from Satya Prakash. As per

S.R.Singh he separated Ct.Parameshwarappa and barber Satya Prakash who were fighting after placating them. Ct.P.Mayathevan, SI M.Bhaskaran, Ct.Syed Abbas, HC S.B.Sawant have not even made a reference to Ct.Parameshwarappa. As per Ct.Parameshwarappa he was going on his scooter towards the Unit lines when he heard noise and Inderpal being beaten by R.L.Meena near the stairs. But the beating near the stairs as per Inderpal was given to him by Satya Prakash. He reported the matter to S.R.Singh. As per Insp.S.R.Singh, after Inderpal was sent to the hospital he saw petitioner, L/Nk.Meena and Ct.Parameshwarappa quarreling in front of the mess and when he asked what had happened, Ct.Parameshwarappa said that they, meaning thereby petitioner and Meena, had taken the key of his scooter. At that petitioner swore at Parameshwarappa who pushed petitioner and thereafter Meena quarreled with Parameshwarappa. Ct.Syed Abbas and Ct.V.Hamsa separated them. Nothing of that kind has been stated by Ct.Syed Abbas, who has just not deposed to of his having intervened, much less having seen petitioner, Meena and Parameshwarappa quarreling. As per Ct.V.Hamsa, when he was on duty Ct.Parameshwarappa came to contact the Dy.Commandant over the telephone but could not do so and thereafter Insp.S.R.Singh came and made a telephonic call to the Asstt.Commandant and thereafter petitioner, R.L.Meena and Parameshwarappa were removed to the hospital. As per Ct.Parameshwarappa he had accompanied Insp.S.R.Singh when Meena and Mahipal Singh were taken to the hospital. Now, Ct.Parameshwarappa has not deposed to of the

petitioner and Meena beating him. He doesn‟t speak of the petitioner and R.L.Meena removing the key of his scooter.

24. It is unfortunate that the Inquiry Officer has not bothered to analyze as aforesaid.

25. Now, on the issue of the bias. Charge No.5 was of the petitioner refusing to obey the lawful command of the Asstt.Commandant, who happened to be Kuldeep Kumar, and we see no reason why Kuldeep Kumar would be the Inquiry Officer. It was his lawful command which was allegedly not obeyed. He would certainly have a likely bias to hold said charge being established. Charge No.5 is inextricably linked with charges No.1 to 4, for if said charges fell, where would be the occasion for the petitioner to be proved to be required to be produced before Kuldeep Kumar and the petitioner refusing to do so.

26. Law does not require bias to be proved, as long as there is objective material before the Court wherefrom real danger of bias can be inferred; it would be a sufficient illegality for a Writ Court to intervene. In this context we may refer to the decision reported as 2000 (7) SCALE 19 Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. where in paragraph 29 the Supreme Court observed:-

"29. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. In the event however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained: If on the other hand, the allegations pertaining to bias is rather fanciful and otherwise to

avoid a particular Court, Tribunal or authority, question of declaring them to be unsustainable would not arise.........."

27. Noting that the Inquiry Officer has simply narrated the inquiry proceedings conducted by him and has noted the testimony of the witnesses, we find no application of mind, in the form of evidence being analyzed; the so called analysis is nothing but simply picking up the statement of the witnesses : none have been juxtaposed against each other and even the inherent contradictions, inchoateness and disjunctiveness not being noted, conscious of the fact that as a Writ Court we cannot re-appreciate evidence as a Court of Appeal, but highlighting that we have not re-appreciated the evidence but have only highlighted material and patent contradictions, inconsistencies and inchoateness which have been totally eschewed by the Inquiry Officer, we terminate by holding that the Inquiry Report dated July 29, 1998 suffers from a total non- application of mind, and is the result of a patent illegality committed by ignoring material contradictions and not even noting, much less discussing the same. In the backdrop of a strong likelihood of bias by the Inquiry Officer we quash the report.

28. The tainted report being quashed, we regretfully note that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority have bothered to consider the aforesaid contradictions, inchoateness and disjunctiveness in the depositions and thus we set aside the order levying penalty of removal from service inflicted on the petitioner as per order dated September 10, 1998 (which incidentally also happens to be the order pertaining to R.L.Meena which has been annexed

as Annexure P-1 with the petition) as also the order rejecting petitioner‟s appeal being the order dated December 31, 1998.

29. We direct petitioner to be reinstated in service with 50% back-wages to be paid; but other consequential benefits to flow. Needful would be done within six weeks from today.

30. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JULY 30, 2012 dk